Novak: Time for Hillary to Drop Out

Robert Novak believes that it's time for Hillary Clinton to give up, admit defeat, and go quietly so Democrats can rally around Barack Obama.

The problem is no one has the cojones to tell her to bow out now.

He writes:

Even before Sen. Barack Obama won his ninth straight contest against Sen. Hillary Clinton, in Wisconsin last Tuesday, wise old heads in the Democratic Party were asking this question: Who will tell her that it's over, that she cannot win the presidential nomination and that the sooner she leaves the race, the more it will improve the party's chances of defeating Sen. John McCain in November?

In an ideal though unattainable world, Clinton would have dropped out when it became clear even before Wisconsin that she could not be nominated. The nightmare scenario was that she would win in Wisconsin, claiming a "comeback" that would propel her to narrow victories in Texas and Ohio on March 4. That still would not have cut her a path to the nomination. But telling her then to end her candidacy and avoiding a bloody battle stretching to the party's national convention in Denver might not have been achievable.

...Clinton's rationale for remaining a candidate is the Texas-Ohio parlay, and pre-Wisconsin polls gave her a comfortable lead in both states. But Texas has become a dead heat, and her margin in Ohio is down to single digits. Following the Wisconsin returns, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, Clinton's leading endorser in the state, is reported to have privately expressed concern as to whether he can hold the state for her. If she ekes out a win in Ohio while losing Texas, who will bell Hillary?

...Clinton's burden is not only Obama's charisma but also McCain's resurrection. Some of the same Democrats who short months ago were heralding her as the "perfect" candidate now call her a sure loser against McCain, saying she would do the party a favor by just leaving.

Clinton's tipping point may have come when it was announced that her $5 million loan to her campaign came from a fund she shares with Bill Clinton. That puts into play for the general election business deals by the former president that transformed him from an indigent to a multimillionaire and might excite interest in their income tax returns, which the Clintons refuse to release. The prospect impels many Democratic insiders to pray for the clear Obama victories on March 4 that they hope will make it unnecessary for anybody to beg Hillary Clinton to end her failed campaign.

Why do Dem insiders have to pray for clear Obama victories in the March 4 primaries?

If Hillary fails to win in Texas and Ohio and she has no chance of getting the nomination, it's not going to take any begging for her to drop out of the race.

According to insiders, Hillary would do the party a favor by getting out of Obama's way. They believe Hillary can't beat McCain.

I think they're mistaken if they believe that Obama stands a better chance against McCain than Hillary.

Sure, Obama is much younger than McCain and he's generating a lot of excitement at the moment. But can he ride that wave all the way to November?

In 2000, George W. Bush was seen as too lightweight. He needed Dick Cheney to add gravitas to the ticket.

If Bush was lightweight, what's Obama? Flyweight?

Moreover, once he starts adding some substance to his speeches, something he can't continue to avoid, I think he'll have a problem.

People may not be focusing on Obama's extremism now but that won't last. I don't think a far Left candidate like Obama can win.

If Dem insiders were smart, they'd be praying for Hillary to do well in Texas and Ohio.